Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Eeyore wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I am not really in what is considered to be the "professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke from their ****ing "professional" efforts. And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ? ARC is one fine example. Many other makers in China and the US and the UK qualify for WOODEN SPOON awards for professional excellence. Where there are no ethics, there is no professionalism. Patrick Turner. The standards in pro-audio are normally first class. Graham |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Andre Jute wrote: On Mar 3, 1:13 pm, Eeyore wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I am not really in what is considered to be the "professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke from their ****ing "professional" efforts. And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ? The standards in pro-audio are normally first class. Huh? Are you an example of what you consider a "professional in pro- audio", Poopie? If you are, the standards must be deplorably low. "Professional audio" standards are definately high in general. But the way many makers actually ensure their gear can comply with these standards over a long time to justify the cost of such gear's prices is often quite appalling, and entirely the connivance of non professional minds. For example, studios once might have used the "fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps. Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using them. Lotsa reasons why. I wouldn't touch on of these ****ing horrors with a 40 foot pole!!! Look, and Ye shall see Crap Abundant about thee. Patrick Turner. Graham And doesn't Krueger call him self a "professional" of audio too? LOL. Unsigned out of contempt for a smoke blower |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: robert casey wrote: Avoiding ground loop issues you need to understand the paths the currents thru such a ground are taking. And remember that all real conductors have resistance, and that "noise" voltages will develop across those current paths. Using dedicated wires for each current path avoids this. That's what you do in a star ground system. One important current path is the one in the power supply. From the center-tap of the high voltage secondary to the filter cap is a high current spike every 120th of a second. 100th of a second in most of the world actually. SO to keep that out of the rest of the amp, you connect the secondary center-tap directly to the negative side of the filter caps, and then what becomes the B- (at the filter cap negative) then becomes a wire leading to the star ground. I've connected my output stage cathode resistors to this B- point, and then use the star ground for low current low signal level work. Spot on and well explained. And Andre Jute wonders why I criticised his 'design by rote' post ! Ignorance? I published a scheme like Robert Casey's, among other grounding schemes, about ten or twelve years ago. You have some catching up to do, Poopie. I have known how to construct a proper grounding system since I was in my teens. How else do you think a mixing console's ground system works ? A single star point like your idea ? Graham |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Unprofessional behaviour on RAT, was Ground Busses
On Mar 4, 1:37*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: On Mar 3, 1:13 pm, Eeyore wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I am not really in what is considered to be the "professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke from their ****ing "professional" efforts. And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ? The standards in pro-audio are normally first class. Huh? Are you an example of what you consider a "professional in pro- audio", Poopie? If you are, the standards must be deplorably low. "Professional audio" standards are definately high in general. I wouldn't know what everyday standards are; I have elite gear, made by the Walkers and by Lowther and by myself. But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're clowns. Andre Jute Such very modest standards, and still they disappoint! But the way many makers actually ensure their gear can comply with these standards over a long time to justify the cost of such gear's prices is often quite appalling, and entirely the connivance of non professional minds. For example, studios once might have used the "fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps. Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using them. Lotsa reasons why. I wouldn't touch on of these ****ing horrors with a 40 foot pole!!! * Look, and Ye shall see Crap Abundant about thee. Patrick Turner. Graham And doesn't Krueger call him self a "professional" of audio too? LOL. Unsigned out of contempt for a smoke blower |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
On Mar 4, 1:42*am, Eeyore
wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Eeyore wrote: robert casey wrote: Avoiding ground loop issues you need to understand the paths the currents thru such a ground are taking. *And remember that all real conductors have resistance, and that "noise" voltages will develop across those current paths. *Using dedicated wires for each current path avoids this. *That's what you do in a star ground system. *One important current path is the one in the power supply. *From the center-tap of the high voltage secondary to the filter cap is a high current spike every 120th of a second. 100th of a second in most of the world actually. SO to keep that out of the rest of the amp, you connect the secondary center-tap directly to the negative side of the filter caps, and then what becomes the B- (at the filter cap negative) then becomes a wire leading to the star ground. *I've connected my output stage cathode resistors to this B- point, and then use the star ground for low current low signal level work. Spot on and well explained. And Andre Jute wonders why I criticised his 'design by rote' post ! Ignorance? I published a scheme like Robert Casey's, among other grounding schemes, about ten or twelve years ago. You have some catching up to do, Poopie. I have known how to construct a proper grounding system since I was in my teens. So you say now, but we didn't see the evidence when you and that fool Pasternack claimed there was something wrong with the scheme I described -- and then couldn't specify a single detail. All I saw was evidence of total ignorance on your part and Pasternack's. How else do you think a mixing console's ground system works ? A single star point like your idea ? Of course not, sonny. That is part of what made me conclude that you are a total ignoramus, as is your bumbuddy Pasternack: that you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much more complicated amp. Graham Be reasonable, Poopie. Faced with your and Pasternack's generalities, you would have concluded the same thing as I did: that you two are ignorant and probably stupid as well. Andre Jute Always ready to explain the finer points to a newbie |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Unprofessional behaviour by A Joot.
Andre Jute wrote: But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're clowns. All of whom know VASTLY more than you could ever dream of beginning to understand you posturing embittered idiotic CHARLATAN. Graham |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Patrick Turner wrote: Eeyore wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: I am not really in what is considered to be the "professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke from their ****ing "professional" efforts. And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ? ARC is one fine example. Many other makers in China and the US and the UK qualify for WOODEN SPOON awards for professional excellence. Who is/are ARC ? They are not a pro-audio manufacturer to my knowledge. Name some of these US or UK manufacturers you have trouble with. Graham |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Unprofessional behaviour by A Joot.
On Mar 4, 2:01*am, Eeyore
wrote: Andre Jute wrote: But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're clowns. All of whom know VASTLY more than you could ever dream of beginning to understand you posturing embittered idiotic CHARLATAN. Graham I think you make my point well, Poopie. You guys all claim to know more than we do, but when we ask you a straight question with a definite answer, we get none. All you lot are good for is tenth-rate abuse. Andre Jute I prefer to cuddle up with the RDH4 |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Patrick Turner wrote: For example, studios once might have used the "fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps. Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using them. Lotsa reasons why. Very few studios (almost none) use tubed power amps for monitoring. I have actually met NONE using tubes in their monitoring. An EAR 509 is most certainly NOT a pro-audio product. I'd classify it as elitist hi-fi. Graham |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
... ...you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much more complicated amp. The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB. -Henry |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Unprofessional behaviour by A Joot.
Andre Jute wrote: On Mar 4, 2:01 am, Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're clowns. All of whom know VASTLY more than you could ever dream of beginning to understand you posturing embittered idiotic CHARLATAN. Graham I think you make my point well, Poopie. You guys all claim to know more than we do, but when we ask you a straight question with a definite answer, we get none. All you lot are good for is tenth-rate abuse. YAWN ! I prefer to cuddle up with the RDH4 It shows you belong to a bygone age. Graham |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Henry Pasternack wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote ...you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much more complicated amp. The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB. You can hardly expect the Joot CHARLATAN to understand that. Graham |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Henry "Porno" Pasternack" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... ...you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much more complicated amp. The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB. -Henry What part of "No cosy chats with child molesters" do you fail to understand, Pasternack? |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A Joot shows off again !
Andre Jute wrote: Since I have many times successfully handled the grounding of "two- stage SE amplifiers" WOW ! What a HERO you are. What do you do for your next trick ? Jump though a fiery hoop ? Graham |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Poopie Stevenson once more is caught lying
Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:44*am, Eeyore wrote: Henry Pasternack wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote ...you two were incapable of distinguishing the grounding requirements of a simple one-tube SE amp from the grounding requirements of a much more complicated amp. The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB. You can hardly expect the Joot CHARLATAN to understand that. Graham Actually, Poopie, I was just waiting for you to agree with your team- leader, the well-known pornographer Henry Pasternack. Since I have many times successfully handled the grounding of "two- stage SE amplifiers" and since, as you just agreed with Pompass Plodnick, "The grounding principles are the same for a two-stage SE amplifier as they are for a multi-stage push-pull amplifier with NFB", you have also just agreed that I would have handled the grounding of a multichannel mixer quite as well as you did (or probably better since I have a vastly more flexible mind than yours, dear old Poopster). Thanks, Porno Pas. Do come again; we always enjoy you putting your foot in your mouth and your other foot in your friend's teeth! Andre Jute Friend of orthodontists everywhere ***** which the wretched Poopie then perjures to read: ***** Andre Jute wrote: Since I have many times successfully handled the grounding of "two- stage SE amplifiers" WOW ! What *a HERO you are. What do you do for your next trick ? Jump though a fiery hoop ? Graham You're fundamentally dishonest, besides being unprofessional, Poopie, just like your team leader Henry "Porno" Pasternack. Unsigned out of contempt |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 12:43 am, Eeyore wrote: How can *any* statement from me be ignorant after all the great newspapers of the world have lauded me for my research, never mind "typically ignorant". Get a grip, Poopie. Since when have you ever examined any equipment designed by me ? Why, have you sent me some? It never arrived. Graham Calm down, Poopie. Get your blood pressure under control. This can't be good for you. Andre Jute Calm, reasonable, cool *all* the great newspapers of the world have lauded you for your research? Want to post some verifyable clips? New York Times, Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Times of London, Sydney Morning Herald, Pravda any of these would do even the News Of The World if that is all you can manage. Keith Open minded but cynical |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Andre Jute wrote: The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress There is an excellent programme called sPlan available at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library. You can download a demo version from http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html Iain Useless to Andre, it has no pose value. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Patrick Turner wrote: For example, studios once might have used the "fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps. Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using them. Lotsa reasons why. Very few studios (almost none) use tubed power amps for monitoring. I have actually met NONE using tubes in their monitoring. Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to suit the client's requirements. If he asks for Lockwoods and a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige. The recording team with which I am associated has a couple of very good UK built tube amps (Radford - ex BBC) The STA100 was available for location recording rental until quite recently (it's too valuable now:-) It was in constant demand. An EAR 509 is most certainly NOT a pro-audio product. I'd classify it as elitist hi-fi. I would certainly agree with that:-) Iain |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Mar 2, 8:33 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Good Stuff. Patrick, reducing your and Iain's post to a very few salient points, am I correct in deriving "best practice" as follows: a) The chassis must be grounded to the mains ground Most books seem to stress this, and the amp builders I have know seem to have always paid particular attention to it. It is critical for safety. b) The circuit ground should be separate and isolated from the chassis/ case, connected via the 27ohm@5W resistor. I have seen boards in a setero amp with the grounds separated by a 10 Ohm resistor, but this is the first time I recall hearing about this excellent 27 Ohm 5W solution. I would like to try it. c) The circuit ground should be as short as possible and loops (such as connecting signal-shields at both ends) are to be avoided. A friend of mine in the UK was I was young was a prototype wireman. He used to make up all sort of interesting circuits for the studio where he worked. He taught me that the input wirirng should be grounded at the input connector (connector isolated from the chassis) I see safety addresssed by grounding the chassis directly to the mains ground. I see any excess potentials within the circuit bleeding to the case. I also see isolating the circuit from the case helping when other components are connected (and grounded). There seem to be several ways to build a quiet hum-free amp. Most people seem to be happy with an amplifier with no hum or hiss audible from the listening position. With careful work, it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with your ear against the speaker. http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...em/C50_002.jpg Regards to all Iain |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Henry Pasternack wrote: Andre Jute wrote: A star ground is just a circular bus or a very short bus. Not really, ANDRE. A star ground is the abstract notion of a purely equipotential (equal voltage) single point connection that eliminates ground loops by reducing the resistance of the common ground bus to zero. It's impossible to achieve in practice, though, and trying to take the approach too literally is likely to cause more harm than good. Don't you mean more hum than silence? Grounding is is tricky and tiresome in inverse proportion to the amount of thought you give it. I would say the opposite is true. The less you think about grounding, the less tricky it seems. In my experience, the layout and ground scheme can make or break and amp. The schematic only tells half the story. As far as tube amps go, careful examination of mil spec equipment, or units built for studio use, can tell you a lot. The bean-counters had a lot less influence over their design than they would have had over equipment made for the domestic market. Then the DIYers were idiots, because the subject is quite worthy of elaboration. The problem I see with everything you say here is that you fail to address the most important meat of the problem, which is precisely how to determine the "order of the grounding connections" and how this translates into a practical wiring and ground layout. That does take practised skills which are best learnt by trial and error by diyers in their own shed. All the discussions in the world about grounding on new groups won't stop diyers getting things wrong a few times unless they learn, and some cannot, or simply will not, because its cheaper to go to a tech person to sort their mistakes. ISTM there are two ways to learn about this kind of thing. You can do it the hard way, and make the same mistake over and over again, gradually implementing changes which lead to improvement, or: You can listen to people with experience, and gain info from books and looking at real-world examples. I have done some of both. But still I have a lot to learn. So urging Andre, or myself, or to give a diagram of how-to-do yourself will have almost zero effect on the hum found in diyer first attempts. I had to teach myself. And I built test gear for measuring low mV level signal volts and currents so I needed to know how to make circuits quiet. At first they were hopelessly too noisy, but gradually I got really good at eliminating noise. It took days and weeks of practice. It's taken me forty years - so far:-) Iain |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Patrick Turner wrote: For example, studios once might have used the "fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps. Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using them. Lotsa reasons why. Very few studios (almost none) use tubed power amps for monitoring. I have actually met NONE using tubes in their monitoring. Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to suit the client's requirements. If he asks for Lockwoods and a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige. Sure, no argument there. I'm referring to what is standard fit in the studios I'm familiar with. I can't imagine amny people asking to monotor on the coffins though ! The recording team with which I am associated has a couple of very good UK built tube amps (Radford - ex BBC) The STA100 was available for location recording rental until quite recently (it's too valuable now:-) It was in constant demand. Yes, you've mentioned them before. An EAR 509 is most certainly NOT a pro-audio product. I'd classify it as elitist hi-fi. I would certainly agree with that:-) Quite. Graham |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Iain Churches wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote Good Stuff. Patrick, reducing your and Iain's post to a very few salient points, am I correct in deriving "best practice" as follows: a) The chassis must be grounded to the mains ground But it doesn't have to be if your transformer and other mains wiring meets Class II. Bear in mind that safety earthing isn't universal even in Europe. I gather that Denmark ? in particular has many unearthed outlets. Graham |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Patrick Turner wrote: For example, studios once might have used the "fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps. Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using them. Lotsa reasons why. Very few studios (almost none) use tubed power amps for monitoring. I have actually met NONE using tubes in their monitoring. Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to suit the client's requirements. If he asks for Lockwoods and a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige. Sure, no argument there. I'm referring to what is standard fit in the studios I'm familiar with. Most have to take a fairly conservative approach. Someone who was following the tube mixer thread e-mailed me to say there was a studio with a 24/8/2 tube mixer in Chiswick W.London which had been bought from a major studio in the 1970s. EMI, Decca, CBS? I asked him for more detail. I can't imagine amny people asking to monotor on the coffins though ! A pair of Lockwood Majors were recently sold for UKP 2 000. The recording team with which I am associated has a couple of very good UK built tube amps (Radford - ex BBC) The STA100 was available for location recording rental until quite recently (it's too valuable now:-) It was in constant demand. Yes, you've mentioned them before. Even though it had a very suibstantial flight case, we decided not to rent it any more. It has earned its keep many many times over. Iain |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
keithr wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 12:43 am, Eeyore wrote: How can *any* statement from me be ignorant after all the great newspapers of the world have lauded me for my research, never mind "typically ignorant". Get a grip, Poopie. Since when have you ever examined any equipment designed by me ? Why, have you sent me some? It never arrived. Graham Calm down, Poopie. Get your blood pressure under control. This can't be good for you. Andre Jute Calm, reasonable, cool *all* the great newspapers of the world have lauded you for your research? Want to post some verifyable clips? New York Times, Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Times of London, Sydney Morning Herald, Pravda any of these would do even the News Of The World if that is all you can manage. Keith Open minded but cynical Since you insist, samples are he http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html If you care so much, you can look up the rest for yourself in the archives of the world's great papers. Happy now? Andre Jute "Plenty of good advice...Jute is great...a private godsend" -- Ruth Rendell /The Times |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Another ankle-nipper waterbombs RAT Ground Busses
On Mar 4, 10:31*am, "keithr" wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Andre Jute wrote: The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress There is an excellent programme called sPlan available at very low cost. *It even has a tube/valve library. You can download a demo version from http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html Iain Useless to Andre, it has no pose value. You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered. Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut. Andre Jute Truly tired of fools coming to RAT to throw themselves against my ankles |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote Good Stuff. Patrick, reducing your and Iain's post to a very few salient points, am I correct in deriving "best practice" as follows: a) The chassis must be grounded to the mains ground But it doesn't have to be if your transformer and other mains wiring meets Class II. Bear in mind that safety earthing isn't universal even in Europe. I gather that Denmark ? in particular has many unearthed outlets. What does Europe have to do with this issue, I thought that the presence of "safety earthing", or lack thereof, was mostly an issue of how old the building is, or are you saying that in Europe there was a directive that all outlets without "safety earthing" must be upgraded? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Iain Churches wrote: Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to suit the client's requirements. If he asks for Lockwoods and a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige. Sure, no argument there. I'm referring to what is standard fit in the studios I'm familiar with. Most have to take a fairly conservative approach. Typically in the UK might mean ATCs. Graham |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
John Byrns wrote: What does Europe have to do with this issue Most of us live here ! Graham |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
On Mar 4, 8:24*am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
With careful work, it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with your ear against the speaker. Aren't they all supposed to be that way? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 8:24 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: With careful work, it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with your ear against the speaker. Aren't they all supposed to be that way Indeed they are "supposed" to be. Iain |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
"Iain Churches" wrote in message news "Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 8:24 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: With careful work, it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with your ear against the speaker. Aren't they all supposed to be that way Indeed they are "supposed" to be. Iain PS I recently saw an "English language manual" for a Chinese amp. It was a single sheet of folded A4) At the bottom of the page it said: "There may be some, but not considerable humble from the loodspeaker". There was indeed "considerable humble from the loodspeaker" at both 50 and 100Hz. Iain |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ground Busses
Iain Churches wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message news "Peter Wieck" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 8:24 am, "Iain Churches" wrote: With careful work, it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with your ear against the speaker. Aren't they all supposed to be that way Indeed they are "supposed" to be. Iain PS I recently saw an "English language manual" for a Chinese amp. It was a single sheet of folded A4) At the bottom of the page it said: "There may be some, but not considerable humble from the loodspeaker". There was indeed "considerable humble from the loodspeaker" at both 50 and 100Hz. Iain I have often wondered if there isn't a lucrative business in there somewhere, translating pidgin' English into 'proper' English. Even big companies are as bad - I recently bought an ASUS EEEPC (Taiwanese) and the Engrish in their manual is at times appalling. I guess you could sell it to them on the basis of saving face?? Cheers ian |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Ground Busses
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... On Mar 4, 10:31 am, "keithr" wrote: ti.fi... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Andre Jute wrote: The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress There is an excellent programme called sPlan available at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library. You can download a demo version from http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html Iain Useless to Andre, it has no pose value. You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered. Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut. The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best software doesn't) Andre Jute Truly tired of fools coming to RAT to throw themselves against my ankles In my life, I have met quite a few peole who were up themselves, but you would be the first who was up himself so far that he has turned himself into a klein bottle |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Ground Busses
The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best software doesn't) Pardon? The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't wish to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks. Preference should not be confused with arrogance. Sure, there are packages not designed for Macs -- there is a particular shortage of decent accounting programs, for example -- but if an owner of a current Mac wishes to do so, he can install a virtual Windows machine and run Mac, Windows, & a flavor of Linux or Unix. In other words, just about anything. Can a Windows box match that? No that I know of. Jon |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Macs is the computer of choice for intelligent people, was
On Mar 4, 10:39*pm, "keithr" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress There is an excellent programme called sPlan available at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library. You can download a demo version from http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html Iain Useless to Andre, it has no pose value. You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered. Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut. The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer than the unwashed masses I'm not a snob. I'm talking to you, as everyone can see, including you when you wipe the **** from your eyes. or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a computer. Ugh. I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes and lived humidity-controlled lives behind air locks. At the time you could write to all the computer owners in the world because there was a list of them and it was only a few hundred names. Besides being an ignoramus, you're an idiot, Keith. You haven't asked the key question: When did I start using a Mac" As a typographer, what people like you call a graphic designer, I started with Macs before the Mac (first there was the Lisa) because the OS Apple took over from Xerox PARC was the only one which communicated directly with the reprographics machines I needed to do film separations for colour printing. Do you actually know how recently Windoze machines caught on to Postscript? Don't bother telling me; I already know you don't know, or you wouldn't make these stupid remarks. So I'm in Macs because they did something right in the beginning, and that is as good as reason as any to remain loyal to them despite the mouth-foaming of little cheapskates like you. In addition, I'm rather particular about the ergonomics of anything I use, and Bill Gates and his krowd of krude klowns cannot even spell ergonomics; the Apple OS, plus Apple physical unit design, are pretty compelling reasons to stick with what works. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best software doesn't) Even if true, which it isn't, why should that either influence or bother me? All the software I want runs on a Mac (I actually have Windows operating on my Mac but very, very rarely want to use the clumsy programmes written for it -- I just have it load at startup so that if, God forbid, I should want it, I don't have to sit around twiddling my thumbs forever while Windows checks the ur-code left over by MS-DOS that those incompetent programmers in Redmond didn't remove). I can draw better schematics in the Mac software I like than most CAD programmes under any OS can draw. See, sonny, it is about my rather valuable time, not about what some little IT fashion victim like you or Poopie has heard on some low-rent street corner. Andre Jute Truly tired of fools coming to RAT to throw themselves against my ankles In my life, I have met quite a few peole who were up themselves, but you would be the first who was up himself so far that he has turned himself into a klein bottle Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're another little nobody who thinks that tearing down other people's achievements will stretch his quarter-inch dick. Let us know if you feel a twinge and we'll make you famous, or at least notorious. Yawn. Are we don yet? Andre Jute "I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission. Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John Mayberry, Emmaco PS Yo, Yaeger, that I agree with you about Macs doesn't mean we are going steady. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Ground Busses
Jon Yaeger wrote: The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best software doesn't) Pardon? The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't wish to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks. NO. The Mac simply HIDES the techy bits better. They are most certainly still there and not unlike Microsoft's offerings. Trust me, I have had to do tech support on them. Simply thinking about it should tell you they can be no less complicated than a PC. Graham |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Macs is the computer of choice for dimwits and LIARS
Andre Jute wrote: I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes LIAR ! You had no such thing whatever. Your extravant pomposity has finally burst the balloon of your ego. Graham |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Ground Busses
|
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Let's see the stuff(ing?) of which Poopie Stevenson is made
Poopie Stevenson aka Eeyore
wrote: Andre Jute wrote: I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes LIAR ! Prove it, Poopie. You had no such thing whatever. So you say, Poopie. Prove it, Poopie. Your extravant pomposity has finally burst the balloon of your ego. Not at all, Poopie. We're just demonstrating that the limits of your parochial mind is set by what happened in your provincial back yard when you were a teenager, and now in your senility by your riprorting blood pressure as measured by these fulminations. Graham I look forward to your proof of your contentions. When you fail to provide proof, I shall be here to kick your lazy, slack, ugly, fat arse over the cathedral for being a liar and a false accuser. Andre Jute Not from your tacky street corner |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A Mac is an elegant implementation for elegant people, so...
A Mac is an elegant implementation for elegant people, so it isn't
surprising that someone without elegance, like you Poopie, won't understand; you should try to look beyond the components to the concept, if you can. HTH. Andre Jute Charisma is the art of inducing apoplexy in undesirables by merely existing elegantly On Mar 5, 1:56*am, Eeyore wrote: Jon Yaeger wrote: The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best software doesn't) Pardon? The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't wish to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks.. NO. The Mac simply HIDES the techy bits better. They are most certainly still there and not unlike Microsoft's offerings. Trust me, I have had to do tech support on them. Simply thinking about it should tell you they can be no less complicated than a PC. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Busses in Adobe Audition 1.5 | Pro Audio | |||
Audio Ground 10 ohms above powersupply ground?? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Floating ground to common ground question. | Car Audio | |||
VCAs vs. subs vs. busses vs. groups | Pro Audio | |||
why rca ground isolators just sound better than cleaning ground points | Car Audio |